1. art and entertainment
2. visual art and design
3. design

Q1 University of Colorado at Boulder
Gerhard Fischer
Department of Computer Science
ECOT 7-7 Engineering Center
Campus Box 430
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0430
(303)492-1502,FAJ(:(303)492·2844
e-mail: [email protected]
Putting the Owners of Problems in Charge
with
Domain-Oriented Design Environments
Gerhard Fischer
Department of Computer Science and Institute of Cognitive Science,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309
email: [email protected]
)~S.
D. Gilmore, R. Winder, F. Detienn~: "User-Centered Requirements for Software Engineer9q,+)
ZPf1- 301.:.
ing Environments", Springer Verlag, Heidelberg
f992" \
f e'
Abstract: Domain workers should gain considerably more independence from computer specialists. Just
as the pen was taken out of the hands of the scribes in the middle ages, the role of the high-tech scribes
should be redefined and the owners of problems should be put in charge.
With this goal in mind, we have developed conceptual frameworks, innovative prototypes and an architecture for integrated, domain-oriented, knowledge-based design environments.
Domain-oriented architectures do not only constitute an incremental improvement over current software
design practices, but represent a major change to the nature of software development. They reconceptualize our understanding of the proper role of computing as an empowering technology for all of us.
Acknowledgments. The author would like to thank the members of the Human-Computer Communication group at
the University of Colorado who contributed to the conceptual framework and the systems discussed in this article.
The research was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants No. CDA-8420944, IRI-8722792, and
IRI-9015441; by the Army Research Institute under grant No. MDA903-86-C0143, and by grants from the Intelligent
Interfaces Group at NYNEX, from Software Research Associates (SRA). Tokyo, and by the Software Designer's
Associate (SDA) Consortium. Tokyo.
Putting the Owners of Problems in Charge
with
Domain-Oriented Design Environments
Gerhard Fischer
Department of Computer Science and Institute of Cognitive Science,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309
Tel: 303-492-1502 Fax: 303-492-2844
Email: [email protected]
Abstract: Domain workers should gain considerably more independence from computer specialists. Just
as the pen was taken out of the hands of the scribes in the middle ages, the role of the high-tech scribes
should be redefined and the owners of problems should be put in charge.
With this goal in mind, we have developed conceptual frameworks, innovative prototypes and an architecture for integrated, domain-oriented, knowledge-based design environments.
Domain-oriented architectures do not only constitute an incremental improvement over current software
design practices, but represent a major change to the nature of software development. They reconceptualize our understanding of the proper role of computing as an empowering technology for all of us.
Keywords: integrating problem setting and problem solving, ill-defined problems, languages of doing,
incremental problem formulation, owning problems, domain-oriented design environments, high-tech
scribes
1 Introduction
Most current computers systems are approachable only through complex jargon that has nothing to do
with the tasks for which people use computers - requiring high-tech scribes (programmers, knowledge
engineers) who are able to master this jargon. The role of high-tech scribes should be redefined,
eliminating the distinction between programmers and non-programmers as two disjoint classes, and defining programming as the mean for users to make computer do what they y.tant them to do, thereby putting
the owners of problems in charge. In this paper, I will (1) identify problems facing user-centered software
engineering environments, (2) describe domain-oriented design environments as systems addressing
these problems, and (3) assess to what extent we have succeeded or failed in putting the owners of
problems in charge.
2 Problems for Future User-Centered Software Engineering Environments
Computing needs to be deprofessionalized. The monopoly of highly trained computing professionals, the
high-tech scribes, should be eliminated just as the monopoly of the scribes was eliminated during the
reformation in Europe. In order to avoid misunderstandings: This does not mean that there is no place for
professionals programmers and professional system designers in the future. It means that the profes-
2
sional computing community should create systems to make computer literacy desirable and achievable.
Some of the problems and challenges behind this approach are briefly described in this section.
Convivial tools. Convivial tools and systems, as defined by IIlich [lilich 73], allow users "to invest the
world with their meaning, to enrich the environment with the fruits of their vision and to use them for the
accomplishment of a purpose they have chosen" (emphasis added). Conviviality is a dimension that sets
computers apart from other communication and information technologies (e.g., television) that are passive
and cannot conform to the users' own tastes and tasks. Passive technologies offer some selective
power, but they cannot be extended in ways that the designer of those systems did not directly foresee.
Convivial systems encourage users to be actively engaged in generating creative extensions to the artifacts given to them. They have the potential to break down the counterproductive barrier between
programming and using programs.
Unfortunately, in most current computer systems the potential for conviviality exists in principle only.
Many users perceive computer systems as unfriendly and uncooperative, and their use as too time consuming. They depend on specialists for help, notice that software is not soft (i.e., the behavior of a
system can not be changed without reprogramming it substantially), and spend more time fighting the
computer than solving their problems.
Problems In the Design of Software Systems. The field study by Curtis, Krasner, and Iscoe [Curtis,
Krasner, Iscoe 88] unveiled the following problems in creating large software systems: (1) the thin spread
of application domain knowledge, indicating that the real problem is understanding the problem, not the
representation of it as a program, (2) fluctuating and conflicting requirements, requiring that the owners of
the problems remain part of the design team and that design in use [Henderson, Kyng 91] is indispensable, and (3) communication bottlenecks and breakdowns between deSigners, clients, and users,
requiring representational means, such as "languages of doing" [Ehn 88], that can achieve a shared
understanding between these groups.
Beyond Programming Languages: From Supply-Side to Demand-Side Computing. Dertouzous (as
reported in [Denning 88]) argues that the computer science community should operate less on the supply
side (i.e., specifying and creating technology and "throwing the resulting goodies over the fence into the
world"). More emphasis should be put on the demand side creating computational environments fitting
the needs of professionals of other disciplines outside the computer science community. Modern application needs are not satisfied by traditional programming languages that evolved in response to systems
programming needs [Shaw 89; Winograd 79]. Most computer users are interested in results, not in programming per se. Shaw [Shaw 89] claims that "the major current obstacle to widespread, effective exploitation of computers is the inability of end users to describe and control the computations they needor even to appreciate the computations they could perform- without the intervention of software experts."
Understanding Problems - Beyond Creating Implementations for Given Specifications. Historically, most software engineering developments (e.g., structured programming, verification methods, etc.)
were concentrated on "downstream activities" [Belady 85]). Over the last decade, it has become increasingly obvious that the real problems of software design will be "upstream activities" [Sheil 83] (see Figure
1) .
While there is growing evidence that system requirements are not so much analytically specified as they
are collaboratively evolved through an iterative process of consultation between end-users and software
3
Problem
T
Specification
T
Implementation
Upstream
Downstream
type of problem:
ill-defined problems
we/I-defined problems
prime objectives:
adequate, understandable,
enjoyable
correct
supporting system
architecture:
domain-oriented
design environments
general-purpose
programming environments
Interaction paradigm:
human problem-domain
communication
human computer
communication
Figure 1: Upstream Versus Downstream Activities
developers [CSTB 90), many research efforts do not take this into account. CASE tools are limited, because they devise more elaborate methods of insuring that software meets its specification, hardly ever
questioning whether there might be something wrong with the specifications themselves. One may argue
that they provide support after the problem has been solved. A consequence of the thin spread of application knowledge [Curtis, Krasner, Iscoe 88) is that specifications often occur when deSigners do not have
sufficient application knowledge to interpret the customer's intentions from the requirement statements a communication breakdown based on a lack of shared understanding- [Resnick 91].
Integrating Problem Setting and Problem Solving. DeSign methodologists (e.g., [Schoen 83; Rittel 84])
demonstrated with their work the strong interrelationship between problem setting and problem solving.
They argue convincingly that (1) one cannot gather information meaningfully unless one has understood
the problem, but one cannot understand the problem without information about it [Rittel 84], and (2)
professional practice has at least as much to do with defining a problem as with solving a problem
[Schoen 83]. New requirements emerge during development, because they can not be identified until
portions of the system have been designed or implemented. The conceptual structure underlying complex software systems are too complicated to be specified accurately in advance, and too complex to be
build faultlessly [Brooks 87]. Specification and implementation have to co-evolve [Swartout, Balzer
82] requiring that the owners of the problems need to be present in the development. If these observations and findings describe the state of affairs adequately, one has to wonder why waterfall models are
still alive despite the overwhelming evidence that they are not suited for most of today's software
problems.
In our own work, we have conducted an empirical study in a large hardware store to clarify the dependencies between problem setting and problem solving [Fischer, Reeves 92]. Figure 2 illustrates how the
problem setting is changed in an attempt to solve the problem. The customer came to the store to buy a
heater. The interaction between the sales agent and the customer led to a reconceptualization of the
problem from "generating more heat," to "containing heat" redefining the problem itself.
Why Owners of Problems Need to be In Charge. As the previous example shows, "problems are often
4
CUSTOMER:
I want to get a couple of heaters for a downstairs hallway.
SALESPERSON: What are you tring to heat? Is
two of the heaters would work .
it insulated? How tall are the ceilings? (Remark: They figure out that
The reason it gets so cold is that right at the end of the hallway is where the stairs are and the stairs just
go up to this great big cathedral ceiling.
CUSTOMER:
SALESPERSON: Well maybe the problem isn't that you're not getting enough heat downstairs, maybe your problem is
that you're not keeping the heat downstairs. Do you have a door across the stairs?
CUSTOMER:
No.
SALESPERSON: Well that's the problem. You can put
some kind of door.
a ceiling fan and blow the hot air back down, or cover it up with
Figure 2: Reconceptualizing a Problem: From Generating to Containing Heat
dilemmas to be resolved, rarely problems to be solved" [Lave 88]. III-defined problems cannot be
delegated (e.g., from clients to professional software designers or professional architects), because the
problems are not understood well enough that they can be described in sufficient detail. The owners of
the problems need to be part of the problem solving team. Imagine in the above example, the customer
would have not gone to the store himself but send someone else with a problem description to buy a
heater. This person would have lacked the necessary background knowledge [Winograd, Flores 86] as
well as the authority to redefine the problem on the fly.
3 Domain·Oriented Design Environments
In order to put problem owners in charge, future software environments must be able to interact with their
users at the level of the task and not only on the level of the medium. Over the last decade, we have
designed and evaluated several prototypes addressing this goal. This section will briefly describe the
steps leading towards our current version of domain-oriented design environments as well as one example of such an environment.
Towards Integrated, Domain-Oriented Design Environments. The first step towards creating more
human-centered computational environments was the development of general purpose programming environments exploiting the capabilities of modern workstations. While these environments were powerful
and functionality rich, they required users to build their systems from scratch. Object-oriented design
environments (such as Smalltalk, Clos, C++) represented an effort to create a market place [Stefik 86] for
software objects by providing substrates for reuse and redesign at the programming level. Their value is
based on the empirical fact [Simon 81} that complex systems develop faster if they can be built on stable
subsystems.
But domain-independent object-oriented systems are limited in the support they can provide at the
problem level. They consist of low-level abstractions (e.g., statements and data structures in programming languages, primitive geometric objects in computer-aided design, etc.). Abstractions at that level
are far removed from the concepts that form the basis of thinking in the application domains in which
these artifacts are to operate. The great transformation distance between the design substrate and the
application domain is responsible for the high cognitive costs and the great effort necessary to construct
artifacts using computers.
5
Domain-oriented construction kits [Fischer, Lemke 88] intentionally sacrifice generality for more elaborate
support of domain semantics. But construction kits do not in themselves lead to the production of interesting artifacts [Fischer, Lemke 88], because they do not help designers perceive the shortcomings of the
artifact they are constructing. Artifacts by themselves do often not "talk back" [Schoen 83] sufficiently,
except to the most experienced designers. Critics [Fischer et al. 91 a] operationalize the concept of a
situation that "talks back." They use knowledge of design principles to detect and critique partial and
suboptimal solutions constructed by the designer.
JANUS: An Example. To illustrate some of the possibilities and limitations of these systems, we will use
the JANUS system [Fischer, McCall, Morch 89] as an "object-to-think-with." JANUS supports kitchen designers in the developments of floorplans. JANUS-CONSTRUCTION (see Figure 3) is the construction kit for the
system. The palette of the construction kit contains domain-oriented building blocks such as sinks,
stoves, and refrigerators. Designers construct by obtaining design units from the palette and placing
them into the work area. In addition to design by composition (using the palette for constructing an
artifact from scratch), JANUS-CONSTRUCTION also supports design by modification (by modifying existing
designs from the catalog in the work area).
Jesnus-Const;ruct;ion
AppJlanc#I PaJtJtt.
Ii
'I
~
~
..
.. ..
Catalog
~~~~
i ' ••
I
Criti~
Cle:ar Woric Area
Load
C3t.l~
All
Save 111 Catalo9
Edit Global
~I~ct.
~$criPtion9
Context
Wor~ Ar~
••
••
~
L-Shaped-Kltchsn
••
11-.....
I:l,
Figure 3: JANUS-CONSTRUCTION: The Work Triangle Critic
JANus-CoNsTRUCTION
is the construction part of JANUS. Building blocks (design units) are selected from the Palette
and moved to desired locations inside the Work Area. Designers can reuse and redesign complete floor plans from
the Catalog. The Messages pane displays critic messages automatically after each design change that triggers a
critic. Clicking with the mouse on a message activates JANUS-ARGUMENTATION and displays the argumentation related
to that message.
The critics in JANUS-CONSTRUCTION identify potential problems in the artifact being designed.
Their
6
knowledge about kitchen design includes design principles based on building codes, safety standards,
and functional preferences. When a design principle (such as "the length of the work triangle is greater
than 23 feet") is violated, a critic will fire and display a critique in the messages pane of Figure 3. This
identifies a possibly problematic situation (a breakdown). and prompts the designer to reflect on it. The
designer has broken a rule of functional preference, perhaps out of ignorance or by a temporary overSight.
Our original assumption was that designers would have no difficulty understanding these critic messages.
Experiments with JANUS [Fischer, McCall, Morch 89] demonstrated that the short messages the critics
present to designers do not reflect the complex reasoning behind the corresponding deSign issues. To
overcome this shortcoming, we initially developed a static explanation component for the critic messages
[Lemke, Fischer 90]. The design of this component was based on the assumption that there is a "right"
answer to a problem. But the explanation component proved to be unable to account for the deliberative
nature of design problems. Therefore, argumentation about issues raised by critics must be supported,
and argumentation must be integrated into the context of construction. JANUS-ARGUMENTATION is the
argumentation component of JANUS [Fischer et al. 91 a]. It is an argumentative hypertext system offering
a domain-oriented, generic issue base about how to construct kitchens. With JANUS-ARGUMENTATION,
designers explore issues, answers, and arguments by navigating through the issue base. The starting
point for the navigation is the argumentative context triggered by a critic message in JANUSCONSTRUCTION. By combining construction and argumentation, JANUS was developed into an integrated
design environment supporting "reflection-in-action" as a fundamental process underlying design activities [Schoen 83].
But even integrated design environments have their shortcomings. Design in real world situations deals
with complex, unique, uncertain, conflicted, instable situations of practice. Design knowledge as embedded in design environments will never be complete because design knowledge is tacit (i.e., competent
practitioners know more than they can say [Polanyi 66]), and additional knowledge is triggered and activated by situations and breakdowns. These observations require computational mechanisms in support
of end-user modifiability [Fischer, Girgensohn 90]. The end-user modifiability of JANUS allows users to
introduce new design objects (e.g., a microwave). new critiquing rules (e.g., appliances should be against
a wall unless one deals with an island kitchen), and (3) kitchen deSigns which fit the needs of a blind
person or a person in a wheelchair.
A Historical Context. Computers in their early days were used to compute. The typical problem at the
time was: take a given algorithm and code it in assembly language. The process of programming was
totally computer-centered (Figure 4). A large transformation distance existed between the problem
description and its solution as a computer program.
High-level programming languages (Fortran, Lisp, Cobol, Algol, etc.) became available in the 1960s.
Certain problem domains could be mapped more naturally to programming languages (e.g., algebraic
expressions, recursive functions, etc.). While all of the languages remained general purpose programming languages, a certain problem orientation was associated with individual languages (e.g., Lisp for AI,
Fortran for scientific computing). The professional computing community started to become specialized:
(1) compiler designer (creating programs that mapped from high-level languages to assembly language),
and (2) software engineers (creating programs that mapped problems to programming languages).
7
Assembly
Languages
Problems
Figure 4: The 1950s: Describing Problems in the Computer's Internal Language
In the 1970s and 1980s new classes of programs appeared: spreadsheets, query languages for
databases, and powerful interactive programming environments. Spreadsheets were successful for three
major reasons: (1) they relied on a model and packaged computational capability in a form that the user
community was familiar with, (2) they added important functionality (propagation of changes) that did not
exist in the non-computational media, and (3) they avoided the pitfall of excess generality: Instead of
serving all needs obscurely, they serve a few needs well [Shaw 89]. These types of systems can be
considered to be construction kits with limited domain-orientation. In our own work, we demonstrated
[Fischer, Rathke 88] that the spreadsheet model can be further enhanced by adding additional domain
knowledge to it.
By extending construction kits with critiquing and argumentation components, design environments
(Figure 5) have the potential to put domain experts (the problem owners) in charge. Computational
environments based on design environment architectures lead to a further specialization among computer
users: knowledge engineers in collaboration with domain workers create design environments (at least
the seeds for them [Fischer et al. 91 b)) and domain workers use and evolve the seeded environments.
4 Assessment, Evaluation and Implications
Is There an Owner or are There Owners of Problems? So far we used the concept of "ownership" in a
way suggesting that there is "an owner" of a problem ignoring that realistic design problems are mUltiperson activities where ownership is distributed. The reason for this is that neither clients, system designers, nor users have a very good idea of what they want a system to do at the outset of a project. Rittel
[Rittel 84] speaks of "a symmetry of ignorance" arguing that knowledge for design problems is distributed
among many people, and that there is nobody among those carriers of knowledge who has a guarantee
that her/his knowledge is superior to any other person's knowledge with regard to the problem at hand.
The notion of "owning" is related to the amount of right, power, authority, responsibility for contributing to
the definition of a problem, and how much people are affected by the solution.
By collaborating with an architectural firm, we recently encountered a convincing example illustrating
8
Programming
Languages
Design
Environments
Problem
Domains
Figure 5: The 1990s: Domain-Oriented Design Environments
several of the issues discussed in this paper. The task the firm competed for was the design (and later
construction) of the Denver Public Library. The final design competition took place in 1991, followed by
construction to be finished by 1995. The City and County of Denver added as a constraint to the design
that the library should not undergo major modifications for the first 15 years. While one may argue that the
design task is to create a building, the real question is ''what is the function of a public library for a large
city in the year 201 O?" Who is the owner of the problem? The client (I.e., the City and County of Denver,
represented by librarians who have love affairs with books as well as techies who think there will be no
books around in 20 years), the designers, and/or the customers who will eventually use the library?
In cases where is no single owner of a problem, the communication between all the "stakeholders" in the
problem is of crucial importance. Shared understanding [Resnick 91] needs to be created. One way to do
this is to develop languages of doing [Ehn 88] which create the possibility of mutual learning, thereby
establishing a relationship of professional parity between system designers and system users.
How are Owners of Problem Put In Charge with Design Environments. The domain-orientation of
design environments allows owners of problems to communicate with the systems at a level that is
situated within their own world [Fischer, Lemke 88; Suchman 87; Wenger 90]. By supporting languages of
doing [Ehn 881 such as prototypes, mock-ups, scenarios, created images, or visions of the future, design
environments have the advantage of making it easier for owners of problems to partiCipate in the design
process, since the representations of the evolving artifacts are less abstract and less alienated from
practical use situations. By keeping owners in the loop, they support the integration of problem setting
and problem solving and allow software systems to deal with fluctuating and evolving requirements. By
making information relevant to the task at hand [Fischer, Nakakoji 91], they are able to deliver the right
knowledge, in the context of a problem or a service, at the right moment for a human professional to
consider.
The Costs of NOT Putting Owners of Problems In Charge. By requiring high-tech scribes as intermediaries, designers are limited in solving ill-defined problems [Simon 73]. III-defined problems cannot be
delegated because if they are delegated, situations do not "talk back" to the owners of the problems who
9
have the necessary knowledge to incrementally refine them. New requirements emerge during development, because they can not be identified until portions of the system have been designed or implemented. Traditional software design methodologies (such as the waterfall model, insisting on a strong
separation between analysis and synthesis) have no chance to succeed in such situations. Alternatives
approaches, such as methodologies allowing the co-evolution of specification and implementation, are
needed [Swartout, Balzer 82; Fischer, Nakakoji 91].
Recreating Un-selfconsclous Cultures of Design. Alexander [Alexander 64] has introduced the distinction between an un-selfconscious culture of design and a self-conscious culture of design. In an
un-selfconscious culture of design, the failure or inadequacy of the form leads directly to an action to
change or improve it (e.g., the owner of a house is its own builder, the form makers do not only make the
form but they lived with it). This closeness of contact between designer and product allows constant
rearrangement of unsatisfactory details. By putting owners of problems in charge, the positive elements of
an un-selfconscious culture of design can be exploited in the development of software systems. Some of
the obvious shortcomings of un-selfconscious culture of design, such as that they offer few opportunities
for reflection is reduced by incorporating critics into the environments [Fischer et at. 91 a].
5 Conclusions
Achieving the goal of putting problem owners in charge by developing design environments is not only a
technical problem, but a considerable social effort. If the most important role for computation in the future
is to provide people with a powerful medium for expression, then the medium should support them in
working on the task, rather than requiring them to focus their intellectual resources on the medium itself.
The analogy to writing and its historical development suggest the goal "to take the control of computational media out of the hands of high-tech scribes." Pournelle (in BYTE, September 1990, p. 281 and p.
304) argues that "putting owners of problems in charge" has not always been the research direction of
professional computer scientist: "In Jesus' time, those who could read and write were in a different caste
from those who could not. Nowadays, the high priesthood tries to take over the computing business. One
of the biggest obstacles to the future of computing is C. C is the last attempt of the high priesthood to
control the computing business. It's like the scribes and the Pharisees who did not want the masses to
leam how to read and write."
Design environments are promising architectures to put owners of problems in charge. They are based on
the basic belief that humans enjoy deciding and doing. They are based on the assumption that the
experience of having partiCipated in a problem makes a difference to those who are affected by the
solution. People are more likely to like a solution if they have been involved in its generation; even
though it might not make sense otherwise.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the members of the Human-Computer Communication group at the University of
Colorado who contributed to the conceptual framework and the systems discussed in this article. The research was
supported by the National Science Foundation under grants No. CDA-8420944, IRI-8722792, and IRI-9015441; by
the Army Research Institute under grant No. MDA903-86-C0143, and by grants from the Intelligent Interfaces Group
at NYNEX, from Software Research Associates (SRA), Tokyo, and by the Software Designer's Associate (SDA)
Consortium, Tokyo.
10
References
[Alexander 64]
C. Alexander, The Synthesis of Form, Harvard University Press, 1964.
[Belady 85]
L. Belady, MCC: Planning the Revolution in Software, IEEE Software, November 1985, pp. 68-73.
[Brooks 87]
F.P. Brooks Jr., No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering, IEEE Computer, Vol. 20, No.4,
April 1987, pp. 10-19.
[CSTB 90}
Computer Science and Technology Board, Scaling Up: A Research Agenda for Software Engineering, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 33, No.3, March 1990, pp. 281-293.
[Curtis, Krasner, Iscoe 88]
B. Curtis, H. Krasner, N. Iscoe, A Field Study of the Software Design Process for Large Systems, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 31, No. 11, November 1988, pp. 1268-1287.
[Denning 88]
P. Denning, Awakening, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 31, No. 11, November 1988, pp. 1254-1255.
[Ehn 88]
P. Ehn, Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts, Almquist & Wiksellinternational, 1988.
[Fischer et al. 91 a]
G. Fischer, A.C. Lemke, R. McCall, A. Morch, Making Argumentation Serve Design, Human Computer Interaction,
Vol. 6, No. 3-4, 1991, pp. 393-419.
[Fischer et al. 91 bJ
G. Fischer, A.C. Lemke, T. Mastaglio, A.1. Morch, Critics: An Emerging Approach to Knowledge-Based Human
Computer Interaction, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 35, No.5, 1991, pp. 695-721.
[Fischer, Girgensohn 90]
G. Fischer, A. Girgensohn, End-User Modifiability in Design Environments, Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI'90 Conference Proceedings (Seattle, WA), ACM, New York, April 1990, pp. 183-191.
[Fischer, Lemke 88]
G. Fischer, A.C. Lemke, Construction Kits and Design Environments: Steps Toward Human Problem-Domain
Communication, Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 3, No.3, 1988, pp. 179-222.
[Fischer, McCall, March 891
G. Fischer, R. McCall, A. Morch, Design Environments for Constructive and Argumentative Design, Human
Factors in Computing Systems, CHI'89 Conference Proceedings (Austin, TX), ACM, New York, May 1989, pp.
269-275.
[Fischer, Nakakoji 91]
G. Fischer, K. Nakakoji, Making Design Objects Relevant to the Task at Hand, Proceedings of MAI-91, Ninth
National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AMI Pressrrhe MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, pp. 67-73.
[Fischer, Rathke 88]
G. Fischer, C. Rathke, Knowledge-Based Spreadsheet Systems, Proceedings of MAI-88, Seventh National
Conference on Artificial Intelligence (S1. Paul, MN), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, August 1988,
pp. 802-807.
[Fischer, Reeves 92]
G. Fischer, B.N. Reeves, Beyond Intelligent Interfaces: Exploring, Analyzing and Creating Success Models of
Cooperative Problem Solving, Applied Intelligence, Special Issue Intelligent Interfaces, 1992, (in press).
[Henderson, Kyng 911
A. Henderson, M. Kyng, There's No Place Like Home: Continuing Design in Use, in J. Greenbaum, M. Kyng
(eds.), Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,
1991, pp. 219-240, ch. 11.
[lilich 73]
I. IIlich, Tools for Conviviality, Harper and Row, New York, 1973.
11
[Lave 88]
J. Lave, Cognition in Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1988.
[Lemke, Fischer 90)
A.C. Lemke, G. Fischer, A Cooperative Problem Solving System for User Interface Design, Proceedings of
AAAI-90, Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AMI PressfThe MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
August 1990, pp. 479-484.
[Polanyi 66]
M. Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1966.
[Resnick 91]
l.B. Resnick, Shared Cognition: Thinking as Social Practice, in l.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, S.D. Teasley (eds.),
Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., 1991, pp.
1-20, ch. 1.
[RitteI84]
H.W.J. Rittel, Second-Generation Design Methods, in N. Cross (ed.), Developments in Design Methodology, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1984, pp. 317-327.
[Schoen 83]
D.A. Schoen, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York, 1983.
[Shaw 89]
M. Shaw, Maybe Your Next Programming Language Shouldn't Be a Programming Language, in Computer
Science and Technology Board (eds.), Scaling Up: A Research Agenda for Software Engineering, National
Academy Press, 1989, pp. 75-82.
[Sheil 83]
B.A. Sheil, Power Tools for Programmers, Datamation, February 1983, pp. 131-143.
[Simon 73]
H.A. Simon, The Structure of /II-Structured Problems, Artificial Intelligence, No.4, 1973, pp. 181-200.
[Simon 81]
H.A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981.
[Stefik 86]
M.J. Stefik, The Next Knowledge Medium, AI Magazine, Vol. 7, No.1, Spring 1986, pp. 34-46.
[Such man 87]
l.A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1987.
[Swartout, Balzer 82]
W.R. Swartout, R. Balzer, On the Inevitable Intertwining of Specification and Implementation, Communications of
the ACM, Vol. 25, No.7, July 1982, pp. 438-439.
[Wenger 90]
E. Wenger, Toward a Theory of Cultural Transparency: Elements of a Social Discourse of the Visible and the
Invisible, Dissertation, Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, 1990.
[Winograd 79]
T. Winograd, Beyond Programming Languages, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 22, No.7, July 1979, pp.
391-401.
[Winograd, Flores 86)
T. Winograd, F. Flores, Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Ablex Publishing
Corporation, Norwood, NJ, 1986.